The Politically Confederate guide to Thomas E. Woods, Jr. OR Two dozen things you should know about Woods' history

I have finally done a Thomas E. Woods page with his full Neo-Confederate publishing record. He also was and editor for Latin Mass and wrote some real reactionary things.

I have it online at www.templeofdemocracy.com/ThomasEWoods.htm

I will include it here also. Though it is much better organized on the webpage.

Thomas E. Wood's Neo-Confederate Curriculum Vitae

In reviewing Thomas E. Woods' web site http://www.thomasewoods.com/ I noticed that many of his essays published in Southern Partisan and Southern Patriot, the latter the publication of the League of the South, <http://leagueofthesouth.net/index.php>, are not mentioned. Also, his articles in Chronicles are missing. To remedy this deficiency I have written this web page. (Editing in progress, I am going to add the full page range and also vol. and no. in some cases and some description of contents.) An article on the Confederate Christian nationalists is online at: http://gis.depaul.edu/ehague/Articles/PUBLISHED%20CRAS%20ARTICLE.pdf; “The U.S. Civil War as a Theological Struggle: Confederate Christian Nationalism and the League of the South," Canadian Review of American Studies, vol. 32 (3) 253-283

ARTICLES

Southern Partisan Note: The system of naming the issues changes over time.

Vol. 16, 1st Quarter 1996, page 48-49, book review of "Derailing the Constitution" by Edward B. McLean, editor. Upset that one of the contributors to this volume thinks the 14th amendment to the constitution was a good thing in a criticism of Indiana University Professor William F. Harvey. Woods in particular doesn't think the application of the Bill of Rights to the states through the 14th amendment is a good thing and thinks Harvey is wrong for saying so. Sees Radical Republicans destroyed the constitution during the Civil War and Reconstruction.

Vol. 17, 2nd Quarter 1997, page 26-29, "Christendom's Last Stand." Cover Article. Sees Civil War as a theological war between an Orthodox Christian south and a heretical North. See Canadian Review of American Studies article above.

2nd Quarter 2001, page 16, "Sitting Amidst The Ruins: The South Versus the Enlightenment." Cover Article. The table of contents of the magazine aptly summarizes the article as follows, "Professor Woods explains how the South and the Enlightenment are at odds, and the Age of Reason is destroying civilization."

4th Quarter 2001, page 12, "A New Strategy Against Terrorism."

Sept. - Oct. 2002, page 31-34, book review of "Revolt from the Heartland" by Joseph Scotchie. About paleoconservatives versus neoconservatives. Woods sees Lincoln having given America a mission of equality which he thinks is a negative development.

Vol. 24 Vol. 1, page 27-29, book review of "Speaking of Liberty" by Lew Rockwell. Praise for Lew Rockwell's book. Lew Rockwell has a web site http://www.lewrockwell.com/ and he is the head of the Ludwig von Mises Institute http://www.mises.org/ which is neo-Confederate. Woods is a frequent contributor to the Lew Rockwell website. Woods reviews book from Neo-Confederate perspective.

Vol. 24 No. 5, page 30-31, book review of "Reclaiming Liberty" by James Ronald Kennedy, Pelican Publishing. They have a web page for their books at http://www.kennedytwins.com/. Kennedy is one of the major founding figures in the Neo-Confederate movement.

Vol. 26 No. 2, page 20-21, book review of "Lincoln Unmasked: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe," by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, published by Random House/Crown Forum. Praises book enthusiastically. Woods claims that Hitler was a fan of Lincoln. Sees legacy of Lincoln as tyranny of a centralized state.

Southern Patriot (official publication of the League of the South)

Woods was a founding member of the League of the South, then known as the Southern League, from Vol. 1 No. 1, page 7, and was on the membership committee.

Vol. 2 No. 1 - Jan.-Feb. 1995, page 3-5, "Copperheads" About northern conservatives who he sees as supporters of what he sees as southern conservatism, which is posed as Orthodox Christianity versus Northern heresy. Feels 14th Amendment is "ill-begotten" and abused by "militant egalitarians." Feels that "No Northerner who makes any pretence to conservatism can therefore fail to sympathize with the South," such as the Southern Agrarians and John C. Calhoun.

Vol. 2. No. 5 - Sept. - Oct. 1995, page 36-37, "The Abolitionists," Portrays them as murderous revolutionaries.

Speaker at the 3rd Annual League of the South convention announced in Vol. 3 No. 2, outside back cover.

Audio Tapes of Speaking Engagements with Neo-Confederate groups.


2003 Confederate Heritage Conference (13th) : Richard Weaver: Historian of the South
Apologia Books http://www.apologiabooks.com/
2003

2003 Confederate Heritage Conference (13th) : The Philosophical Legacy of Abraham Lincoln
Apologia Books http://www.apologiabooks.com/
2003

3rd Annual Southern League National Conference - Christendom's Last Stand
All Points South, Inc. http://pointsouth.com/index.htm Currently this tape is sold by Apologia Books.
1996

League of the South - 1998 Convention in Birmingham - The Spirit of the South vs. The Spirit of this Age

All Points South, Inc. http://pointsouth.com/index.htm Currently this tape is sold by Apologia Books.
1998

The above tapes are still for sale from Apologia Books.

United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine

Vol. 57 No. 5, May 1994, page 27, by a Tom Woods, reprinted from Peninsula Magazine, November 1993 at Harvard, titled "Peninsula's Women." Woods was an undergraduate student there, but the name is given as Tom Woods.

Scholar of the Abbeville Institute http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/Scholars.htm

Chronicles (publication of the Rockford Institute, run by Neo-Confederates)
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/

Vol. 20 No. 5, May 1996, page 49, "Battling Cyberhate." Woods disparages efforts to battle "cyberhate" as some leftist effort to suppress free speech.

Vol. 20 No. 7, July 1996, page 37, "Ron Paul and the Two GOPs." Article asserting that Ron Paul is a true conservative and his defeat of Republican incumbent Greg Laughlin in the Republican primary in the Texas 14th district was a victory for true conservatism.

Vol. 24 No. 1, January 2000, page 32-33, book review of "The Roosevelt Myth" by John T. Flynn, 50th anniversary republishing. Books attacks Franklin Delano Roosevelt which Woods feels well observed.

Vol. 26 No. 9, September 2002, page 26-28, book review of "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got to Be So Hated" by Gore Vidal. Likes the book.

Vol. 27 No. 5, May 2003, page 28-30, book review of "God and the World" by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Doesn't approve of him since he is not orthodox by Woods' standards.

McCain Picketed by Confederate Flag Wavers

A McCain speaking engagement was picketed by Confederate flag waivers.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/28/ap3963357.html

This South Carolina League of the South is probably behind it. They have already had one "flagging," as they call it, of McCain before. Go down the web page for the two McCain items.

http://www.sclos.org/

Other organizations and individuals might be involved also.

I think we are going to see more of this as the presidential campaign continues. I think the democrats will likely be targeted, since it seems no Republican candidate besides McCain can take a stance against the Confederate flag.

"Yankee Governor with Southern Values" Romney campaigns in the South

(The above are some scans of a T-shirt that was sold by Southern Partisan magazine.)

This two articles mention how Romney is being touted as the "Yankee governor with Southern values." (Spartanburg Herald, in South Carolina.)

http://www.goupstate.com/article/20070720/NEWS/707200322/-1/BUSINESS

http://www.goupstate.com/article/20070719/NEWS/70719007/1051/NEWS01

Of course with "Southern" values there is the implication that there are unsouthern values. The articles don't really spell out what "Southern values" are.

The Neo-Confederates are very clear that Southern values are reactionary values. I think Romney is trying to say that he has religious right values, but it is interesting to see how the ideology of the Neo-Confederates is being mainstreamed.

I recommend to the reader my essay on white banal nationalism at this link:

http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking.htm

SPLC has a blog!

The Southern Poverty Law Center blog is at:

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/

I am on the blog roll. I am going to put this link on the right side bar also as one of my links.

Ed

Anti-Confederate flag cartoons

There are several dozen anti-Confederate flag cartoons at this link.

http://www.cagle.com/news/flag/

Many are quite hilarious.

Another United Daughters of the Confederacy Ku Klux Klan postcard

Well I think this shows what the meaning of "Confederate heritage" is about.

I blogged on the other United Daughters of the Confederacy KKK post card last year and have it online at this link.

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2006/06/united-daughters-of-confederacy-proud.html

A picture of the pulling down of the statue of King George III

Sometimes when it is proposed that a Confederate statue be removed some one will counter that in America we don't remove statues. This picture will show that is not true. During the American Revolution the statue of King George III was pulled down by the Americans.

http://independence.nyhistory.org/item.php?item_no=77&seq=0

A lot of times when you hear various rationalizations in defense of Confederate monuments and statues, etc. the historical claims are just made up out of thin air.

Mentioned on "Nation" magazine website in article on Rudy Giuliani's South Carolina Campaign head, Arthur Ravenal Jr.

The link to the article is at:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=210015

I was able to dig up the Council of Conservative Citizens http://www.cofcc.org/ article, the Southern Partisan article, and the congressional record entries. As the blog says, I have the congressional record entries on my Presidential candidates web page which I provide a link to on the right margin of my blog.

http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm

Incidentally, I have made a minor modification to my web site to explain that my resume is a source of online articles. http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/resume.htm

Rudy Giuliani's White Powder/White Power Problem.

Max Bluementhal has this article on Yahoo from Nation magazine.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070628/cm_thenation/45209093

Arthur Ravenal, who is heading Giuliani's campaign, had a speech defending secession in the Congressional Record, June 25, 1991. It was reprinted in the Vol. 11, 2nd Quarter 1991 issue of Southern Partisan, page 10.

This is the Congressional Record entry for the 102nd Congress:

SUPPORT FOR SECESSIONISTS (House of Representatives - June 25, 1991)

[Page: H4950]

(Mr. RAVENEL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

Mr. RAVENEL. Mr. Speaker, I know that those who win the wars write the histories. However, I must take exception to a remark made by Mr. Solarz last week wherein he said,
Abraham Lincoln made the point that once the Southern States joined the Union, they were part of it permanently.

The fact was and still is that no constitutional prohibition of secession exists. Faced with this dilemma, Mr. Lincoln provoked the infant Confederacy into foolishly attacking Fort Sumter. He then declared the departing States to be in rebellion and called for 75,000 volunteers to suppress it. North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Virginia refused the call and joined their southern sisters. I join those who applaud todays secessions in the Soviet Union and around the world. But where were they in 1861? We're content, but we still stand when the bands play Dixie!

[Page: H4951]
[TIME: 1230]

Possible implications of the recent failure of the Senate to pass an immigration bill.

The U.S. Senate failed to pass legislation on immigration, a couple weeks ago, (or was it three weeks ago?). Legislation on immigration seems to have stalled out and it doesn't appear that another bill on immigration is in the works. Though there might be some legislation being worked on and not being discussed publicly.

The one thing that is sure is that the failure of any legislation to pass continues the status quo. The status quo seems to fuel discontent among the base of the Republican party and pit social conservatives against the business interests in the Republic party. I think it will also pit the grassroots of the Republican party against the national Republican party establishment.

I think it could have serious ramifications for the Republican party besides divisive fights and disunity. The credibility of the Republican party leadership and elites could completely disintegrate with the rank and file conservatives. The grassroots might conclude that they need another political vehicle besides the Republican party. Or they might take over the Republican party in multiple states. It could be that in many states the Republican party will have its own agenda in opposition to the national party. For the South, the Republican party might be the Republican equivalent of Dixiecrats, and in reality a separate sectional party.

The break down in the authority of the national Republican party elites will provide an opportunity for Neo-Confederates to enter their agenda into the Republican party.

However, it shouldn't be forgotten that the national Republican party has one thing in their favor, they have money and money pays for elections and brings influence. But as the immigration issue boils over it may not be enough. In the South, and perhaps elsewhere, the candidate who seems to be aligned with the national Republican party elites, may find that getting elected or re-elected very difficult when perceived as pro-immigration. The underfunded candidate who is anti-immigration can win with poor funding and the opposition of the local media, or because of the opposition of the local media. In short there might be a revolt by social conservatives that overwhelms the management of Republican party politics by local and national Republican party elites.

If George W. Bush and the Republicans had passed immigration election, they could have presented a done deed, that would be very difficult to overturn by anti-immigration activists and directed a campaign to some other issue. There could be some hysteria worked up over something like, "Muslim Lesbians are teaching evolution in our schools." However, they didn't pass any immigration legislation, since it seems it is each Republican for him/herself in the upcoming elections. This seems rather foolish of the Republicans, since this issue isn't going to be a problem for the Democrats, but could really tear up the Republican party and bring chaos to Republican party politics.

In summary the issue of immigration may breakdown establishment authority in the Republican party and provide openings for out groups like the Neo-Confederates in the Republican party. It will be very interesting to see how the campaigns at the local level in the South develop for the 2008 elections. The national Republican party elites are not stupid and they might have some strategy to manage this issue. I don't see one, but that doesn't mean that there might not be one.

Alexander P. Napolitano scheduled speaker at Ludwig von Mises Insitute 25th anniversary event.

Andrew P. Napolitano, Fox news legal commentator is a scheduled speaker at the Ludwig von Mises 25th anniversary celebration. http://www.mises.org/upcomingstory.aspx?Id=97

The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the Libertarian faction of the Neo-Confederate movement and its head, Lew Rockwell, runs http://www.lewrockwell.com/ .

Andrew P. Napolitano's book, "The Constitution in Exile," has a chapter of Neo-Confederate nonsense in it, so Napolitano and the Ludwig von Mises Institute are a match.

What is interesting, is that the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the http://www.lewrockwell.com/ site are very much against the war in Iraq and very critical of president George W. Bush in contrast to Fox news which is very much has the opposite opinions. Are some of the Fox news conservatives bailing?

Confederate Reenacting gets ugly.

I came across this latest from the web site, Save the SCV, http://www.savethescv.org/Index.htm .

It seems the Neo-Confederates are getting ugly with Walter C. Hilderman at Civil War re-enacting events. It also tells how some Confederate re-enactors are seeing themselves are a real Confederate force. Hilderman reports the following:

"One of the most startling expressions of this attitude among SCV re-enactors came from Robert "Rock" Edmiston, the 1st Sergeant of the SCV dominated 63rd North Carolina Troops reenactment group. He is a longtime leader in the Rowan Rifles SCV Camp in Salisbury, North Carolina. In May, 2004, Edmiston stated that, "If need be, the 63rd will be that unreconstructed thin grey line against a tyrannical federal government and the yankeeazation of our Southland." There is no statement that is more dangerous to the hobby of Civil War reenacting. In making this statement, Edmiston, now the 63rd’s commander, made it clear that his Confederate reenacting group is willing to fight the United States government. "

It seems it isn't all about "living history" or "heritage not hate." Hilderman's website is a good website to track what is going on in the SCV and amongst Confederate re-enactors. Evidently, Confederate reenacting is a form of anti-government militia training.

A Struggle for the United Daughters of the Confederacy?

Some years back before the radical Neo-Confederate movement took over the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), the leadership would issue in the Confederate Veterans bulletins of what the purpose of the SCV was and that a radical path would discredit the SCV. The membership didn't seem to be concerned.

Recently in the United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine, the President General of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), had a full page bulletin informing the readers what the purpose of the UDC was and more importantly what it wasn't. What it wasn't was involvement with other groups. The bulletin has a border like those for a certificate. It reminded me of the SCV warnings before they fell to the Neo-Confederates.

The UDC did issue a message in its magazine to the membership similar to this recent message during the 1950s during the struggle over civil rights.

Is the UDC going to be captured by the radical Neo-Confederate movement? I am sure the radical Neo-Confederates would very much like to have it under their control. UDC has various buildings and resources. The very fact that the UDC has to issue this warning is revealing that there is a concern that the UDC might be directed to radical Neo-Confederate avenues.

However, there are reasons a take over might be difficult. The UDC has been continuously operating through out the 20th century. They have a pre-existing membership and leadership. The SCV in contrast nearly disappeared in the 60s and 70s and had a huge expansion in membership during the 80s and 90s. The UDC is a women's organization and the radical Neo-Confederate movements are largely men, with few women. It would be harder to get enough members into the UDC to take it over. The UDC also has been more for upper class and middle class women.

The SCV has organized a women's auxiliary, the Order of the Confederate Rose, http://www.confederate-rose.org/. I have wondered what the need for this group is, when there is already the UDC. Why the SCV wants to organize women outside the UDC. The question arises if it is a vehicle to organize women to take over the UDC.

Another weakness of the UDC, is its aging membership. Now it may not be such a weakness. Often genealogical interests and historical interests start when people reach middle age and think about eternity. An organization will have an older membership, but it being continuously replenished by new middle aged members and not facing a decline. But if the UDC really doesn't have a problem with aging membership, the next generation to inherit it might be a smaller group of radical Neo-Confederate women.

Finally, there have been discreet promotions of Neo-Confederacy in the United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine of radical Neo-Confederacy by Clara Erath in her column "Confederate Notes."

The UDC organizational struggles are kept out of public view and so it is hard to know what is happening in it. It could well be that the UDC is in no danger of take over, and it is just taking a precautionary measure against a few stray elements. I think that either nothing will happen or one day there will be a take over and we will find out after the fact. Or at a convention there could be a full scale squabble and news coverage if the police are called. Police have been called to a UDC local convention before. We will have to watch and wait.

Homophobia and Confederate Heritage

I think that this blog at a major Neo-Confederate website says it all.

http://shnvalerts.blogspot.com/2007/06/crime-for-pastors-and-churches-to-speak.html

The article referred to is an American Family Association website with its founder and chairman Donald E. Wildmon. Wildmon interviewed in Southern Partisan, 2nd Quarter 1989 issue.

Neo-Confederates are in the anti-gay movement in this country.

Thomas E. Woods says he is not Neo-Confederate

Thomas E. Woods, who wrote cover articles for Southern Partisan and other articles for the League of the South, claims he isn't Neo-Confederate in this letter to the editor of The Depaulia, the student newspaper of DePaul University in Chicago. The link to the article is as follows:

http://thedepaulia.com/story.asp?artid=2323&sectid=4

It is in response to a letter to the editor by Euan Hague, a professor there, that Thomas Woods was a neo-Confederate. Euan Hague's letter unfortunately is no longer online. I printed out copies of both letters from my records.

Thomas E. Woods has a website http://www.thomasewoods.com/ which omits in his resume his articles in Southern Partisan and elsewhere in the Neo-Confederate movement. In his biography, in the lengthy list of periodicals he has contributed to he omits Southern Partisan. His helping to found the League of the South http://leagueofthesouth.net/index.php and his activities in the League of the South is omitted.

Also, the Abbeville Institute http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/ is omitted from his resume. http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/Scholars.htm

Woods does admit to being involved in www.lewrockwell.com and the Ludwig von Mises Institute www.mises.org and yet claims not to be neo-Confederate. This is a link to his articles at the Lew Rockwell website. http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods-arch.html

Well, I am rather busy now, but I do definitely plan to do a Thomas E. Woods web page and include a bibliography of many of his articles that he has omitted from his web page.

I am curious if he is the same Tom Woods who at Harvard authored an article in Penisula attacking Carol Moseley-Braun for her blocking the renewal of the United Daughters of the Confederacy patent and had his article reprinted in the United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine.

Ron Paul and the Neo-Confederates

Since the Republican presidential candidate debate the American public that cares anything at all about politics knows who Ron Paul is. Rudy Giuliani did Paul a great favor by angrily attacking him. What better publicity could Ron Paul get? So I have added Ron Paul to my Presidential Candidates 2008 page at http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm .

I haven't put the Neo-Confederate material in.

He has an extensive record with the Neo-Confederate Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI) http://www.mises.org/ and actually attended a LvMI secession conference . Lew Rockwell the director of the Ludwig von Mises Institute runs http://www.lewrockwell.com/ also. You can visit their website and see what their opinion is of Ron Paul. I will have to spend an hour to get all Ron Paul's involvements on the Presidential Candidates 2008 page. Look for Paul, Ron on my web page.

Some political pundits have said that Giuliani won because he supposedly put Ron Paul in his place. It strikes me as a lot of pious humbug to me. A lot of commentators trying to strike some type of pose, like Giuliani himself. The real winner is Ron Paul. As I said, the American public that cares anything at all about politics now knows Paul exists and prior to the Giuliani outburst not too many people new who he was or had any idea what Paul stood for. Then the Republican establishment media had to denounce Ron Paul since it was a news item. So Ron Paul got additional publicity.

My guess is that even among Republicans the Iraq war is losing its popularity. The three front runners in the Republican party have luke-warm support from a large section of the Republican party on other issues. A lot of Republican and conservative leaders probably are not so happy that their political futures are going to go down with Iraq. A Republican U.S. Senator facing election in 2008 is probably not very happy. A Republican governor up for re-election in 2008 is probably not very happy either. The front runners can't count on the incumbent president to campaign for them in the primaries since that would bring them down for the general elections. The candidates want to be a "Reagan" and not a Bush. Finally, I have a hunch that the public is fed up with focus-group driven candidates.

I don't think that things are locked down. If by this Fall things in Iraq are still going badly Ron Paul may do fairly well in the Republican primaries. The Republicans may be in turmoil.

I do think Ron Paul's election would be a disaster for the nation. However, I don't think that is likely. The same failure of the war in Iraq that might drive Ron Paul to the front ranks of the Republican presidential candidates, will likely drive the Democrats to victories in 2008. However, after the election Ron Paul may no longer be an outsider in Republican party politics.

In watching developments in politics and the Republican party being more and more a regional party of the South and West, I wonder what potential there is for it to be a party with a more Neo-Confederate agenda. Also, by what avenue this may happen. As, I have blogged before, I think the Republican party defeats in 2006 and the falling popularity of the Bush administration has weakened the Republican party establishment's hold on the Republican party agenda. Some development, Ron Paul's success in the primaries or something else might break it and I think a Neo-Confederate agenda might well come rushing into the Republican party. This is all very speculative.

I will get some of Ron Paul's information online over the next few months.

Jerry Falwell and Neo-Confederacy

Just for the record.

Jerry Falwell interviewed in Southern Partisan, Vol. 2 No. 2, Spring 1982, starting page 22 I believe.

Liberty University has Neo-Confederate activities. One year the History department put Jefferson Davis on trial and found him innocent by finding secession legal and justified. Southern Partisan liked the mock trial so much they ran an article on it. (Southern Partisan, Vol. 22 No. 3, May/June 2002, pages 28,39.) Liberty University actually did advance promotion in the Southern Partisan for the event. They had a full page inside back cover ad. (Southern Partisan Vol. 22 No. 2, March/April 2002, page 41.)


A trial of Abraham Lincoln was done also and Lincoln was found guilty of war crimes. See this link http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=13208&NewsID=49

This year in 2007 Liberty University is having a Robert E. Lee event. That in itself isn't a problem, you could discuss his violation of his sworn oath of allegiance to the United States as an officer. His losing the war. (I know this is being somewhat picky, but he was a general after all.) However, I think it will be a lot of glorification of Lee.
http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=12471

Cheating in School - OFF TOPIC

I have been reading what percentage of students admit to cheating. I am not surprised that some majors have a high percentage of cheating, but I was astounded to read 54% of engineering graduates admit to cheating. I am sure there would be some cheaters in any profession, but 54%!

The person you hurt when you cheat is yourself.

I know very well that this sounds like something that your teacher might say as some saying or lesson. However, it is entirely true and profoundly true. The hurt, the victimization of yourself is profound and deep.

Cheating is wrong also. However, I doubt the efficacy of saying that cheating is morally wrong is sufficient to limit it. I have never cheated, nor even contemplated cheating in the least. I think to cheat would be horrible, you would have to associate with a crummy person -- yourself.

However, back to victimization. If you cheat you will not drive yourself as hard to study to master a topic. You will not learn as much as if you resolved to study hard. This is the lessor loss of cheating. The major loss is that you will not master yourself, challenge yourself, nor test yourself.

To master a topic and get good grades you will have to study hard, and push yourself. You will have to resist doing other activities that might give an evening's fun instead of grinding through and comprehending something. You will have to manage time. You will have to control yourself and know yourself.

If you will feed back on tests and papers and learn your limits, learn what you need to do to be better, you will grow in abilities.

If you cheat you will never know if you have the wherewithal to take a challenge and overcome.

How much preferable to learn skills of learning, tackling tough problems, managing your time and yourself, in learning Chemistry 101, or Medieval History or some other class, than having to start learning these things during a serious challenge in your life after you graduate.

Finally, I don't think cheating will give you much better grades. The students who don't cheat, have discipline, work harder, are abler learners with more effective study habits. You will be mostly competing with the other cheaters.

In the end you will be someone who will cheat again. After all if you rationalize cheating once, why not a thousand times? You will be a person who is ill-equipped to meet hard challenges. A person who can't really push themselves when faced with a tough problem. A person who will instead focus on the easy angle to reach some goal. A person that is not likely to do anything with their lives.

Also, you are a person who isn't that well educated since you didn't learn as much as your grades might indicate and not likely to get much better educated.

Back to the moral reason not to cheat. If you cheat in one activity why wouldn't you cheat in another? Like your significant other?

Richard T. Hines in the News.

Richard T. Hines was an editor for Southern Partisan and is an active Neo-Confederate.

This is a very interesting article about him and lobbyists overseas in Nigeria.

Link to New York Times article.

This article gives more back ground on Richard T. Hines.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050829/blumenthal

Council of Conservative Citizens 2008 Election page/ CCC at Presidential Events in South Carolina

The Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) has added a blog and has tagged some of the items as 2008 election items. This is the link.

http://cofcc.wordpress.com/tag/election-08/

However, they don't seem to have all the election 2008 items tagged.

For example, at this link they talk about being at a McCain campaign event but it isn't tagged.

http://cofcc.wordpress.com/2007/04/27/charleston-cofcc-on-site-at-mccain-rally/

This item has a "Read More" link to the following:

http://heritagelost.wordpress.com/2007/04/26/charleston-cofcc-on-site-at-mccain-rally/

I think we can expect the neo-Confederates to be active in South Carolina campaigning against candidates they don't like. The South Carolina CCC report mentions that the League of the South was there also. Whether it will continue to be 3 or 10 people or will have more people involved, we will have to just wait and see.

I am going to put the link to the tagged items on my presidential page which is at:

http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm

Heritage Hunting

What can I say? The website says it all.

http://www.heritagehunting.com/

Article on Thomas Woods at DePaul University

The DePaul University campus has been alerted that there is more to Thomas Woods than being some conservative Catholic historian. This article was printed in the student newspaper for that university.

http://www.thedepaulia.com/story.asp?artid=2287&sectid=4

The Thomas Woods website is http://www.thomasewoods.com/ The URL given in the article forgot the middle "e". Wood's website omits the articles he wrote for the League of the South and which were published in their periodical, Southern Patriot.

Thomas Woods is Associate Editor of Latin Mass magazine. http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/

I am mentioned in the "New York Sun"

I am mentioned in the "New York Sun" concerning presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani and his stance on the Confederate flag.

http://www.nysun.com/article/52276

I am mentioned on page 3 at the end.

Giuliani takes position on Confederate flag

These are some articles on Rudy Giuliani and his position relating to the Confederate flag.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/us/politics/11rudy.html?ref=politics

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4703442.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6547495,00.html

Giuliani feels it should be left to the states. He side steps the issue of what the Confederate flag means or that it is a symbol of white supremacy.

Oh Please! Columbia, SC publication public relations blather

In this article in The State, the major paper of South Carolina, the city of Columbia urges the media not to have all the interviews in front of the Confederate flag on the state house grounds.

http://www.thestate.com/426/story/29377.html

The flag was put there to be prominent, to be seen, and so as a consequence it is being seen. The purpose of a flag is to declare identity.

So to whine about the media coverage that includes the flag is somewhat hypocritical. It is like putting up a bill board and complaining that people are reading it. I think this news story is one of those managing public opinion news stories that major dailies put out. If the Confederate flag gives the state of South Carolina a negative image, it isn't because the state of South Carolina did something stupid, but it is the fault of the big bad news media.

Note to The State, state of South Carolina, you made your bed, now you sleep in it.

Bilboization of the Republican Party & Neo-Confederacy

As reported in the Dallas Morning News and other publications, Republican State Senator Dan Patrick of Houston boycotted a prayer by Imam Yusuf Kavakci.

The story is reported at the following websites.

Link to article in San Antonio paper.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4689405.html

For those who don't know who Bilbo was, I have these two links

http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/pubs/bilbo.pdf

Bilbo was a viciously racist individual and the above link gives a back ground of his life. The following link is his congressional career.

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=b000460

First there are some aspects of this story that show that Dan Patrick talks out both sides of his mouth or is incapable of logical thinking.

Patrick explains his walk out as follows in the Houston Chronicle.

"Republican Sen. Dan Patrick on Wednesday boycotted the first prayer delivered in the Texas Senate by a Muslim cleric, and then praised religious tolerance and freedom of speech in an address at the end of the day's session.

"I think that it's important that we are tolerant as a people of all faiths, but that doesn't mean we have to endorse all faiths, and that was my decision," he said later.

"I surely believe that everyone should have the right to speak, but I didn't want my attendance on the floor to appear that I was endorsing that."

Evidently both Eagle Forum and the Harris County Republican Party criticized having an Imam speak, on the pretext that it was too close to Easter. (Houston is in Harris County.) The Imam was asked to do the opening prayer by State Sen. Florence Shapiro - Republican Plano (suburb north of Dallas).

Dan Patrick is also a right wing radio talk show host in Dallas and Houston.

I see this as an erosion of control of the Republican party agenda by the Republican party establishment. They may in certain venues pander to various extreme elements in the Republican party, but I doubt that they want these elements setting the agenda. If in 2008 Dan Patrick and his wing of the Republican party get re-elected and Florence Shapiro loses out in the primaries because of this issues and others like it, the Texas Republican party will really go off the deep end. Bilboization will be seen as the ticket to political success and there will be competition to be more Bilbo than the other candidate. On the other hand, the Republican party may edge Patrick out some way. Looking into the future is like looking through some wavy and murky piece of glass. Mostly we have to wait and see. However, I think that in waiting we should observe whether the Republican party is going to evolve into a Solid South type of party that has marched way off the mainstream of America.

The Neo-Confederates are hoping to capture popular political support by advancing an agenda appealing to various hostilities. However, they may be beaten to the punch by the Republican party. The Neo-Confederate impact may not be directly through electoral politics, but instead through shaping of public opinion. What happens in the South Carolina Republican primary in 2008 will be especially interesting to see what impact the Neo-Confederates have. They appear to have some political strength there and are organized there. The Confederate flag issue is still alive there. The Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) is now run by outspoken Neo-Confederates. The Commander-in-Chief (C-i-C) is the editor of Southern Partisan magazine. The South Carolina primary affords a huge opportunity to get the Neo-Confederate in the news and have an impact.

When the Republican party has their convention in 2008, it will be interesting to see if delegates from some of the former Confederate states fly Confederate flags in the convention hall. With the Republican establishment control over the Republican party eroding, I am not so sure they will be able to manage the convention and produce the big show.

Republicans and the Council of Conservative Citizens

The Council of Conservative Citizens have the following memorial for Samuel Francis:

http://www.cofcc.org/memoriam/sam_francis.htm

What you will find at this page is a link to Republican Congressman John J. Duncan, TN, 2nd District, at this link:

http://www.house.gov/duncan/2005/fs030905.htm

I think we can expect more of this as George W. Bush and the Republican party management loses all control over the direction of the Republican party.

Secession silliness

The secessionist branch of Neo-Confederacy is only a particular plan of action for one small faction of those holding Neo-Confederate beliefs. One concern about discussing secession is that it tends to make it seem like that is the central issue of Neo-Confederacy. It isn't. The overwhelming impact of Neo-Confederacy is through other venues besides secessionism. The Council of Conservative Citizens doesn't advocate secession.

However, a couple things bear pointing out about the Neo-Confederates references to secessionism.

The various secessions and national breakups of European nations are pointed out by Neo-Confederates. What should be pointed out also, is that these new nations promptly join the European Union. It is the exchange of one union for another. They also join NATO. All of this is in the context of other transnational groups like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization. It is more a rearrangement of connectedness than separation. Ireland has a huge influx of immigrants from Poland because the European Union has the free movement of labor. The new nations of Europe are not islands.

"United We Stand, Divided We Fall" seems to be a concept lost on Neo-Confederates, but it is not surprising since this concept is inherently in opposition to white patriarchal supremacy. We live in a shrinking world. I remember being told that in the 1960s when it was amazing even then how with jet travel and the telecommunications of that era had really brought together the world. How much more now the world is interconnected, with the Internet, cheaper air travel, GPS, modern telecommunications.

In this world all sorts of people are brought together and will need to live together constructively. It won't be a world where one group is going to be on top, and that world is a threat to the Neo-Confederates.

Bill Clinton material online on the Presidential Candidate page.

I got the Bill Clinton material added to:

http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm

The Bill Clinton material is put in Note 4 and has the text of his letters to the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Also, a short note that he put a wreath on the Confederate Monument in Arlington Cemetery each year.

Direct Link to Note 4

The above is the direct link to the note.

Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton and Bill's Record Regarding the Confederacy

I had initially decided that Bill Clinton's record regarding the Confederacy wasn't relevant to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton is an independent person and capable of her own decisions and opinions and it can't be presumed that her husband's opinions are here.

However, Bill Clinton has become a major part of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, and in particular Hillary's campaigning for the votes of African Americans.

Also, for the other candidates I am listing the Confederate records of major persons in their presidential campaigns.

Bill Clinton wrote two letters of congratulations to the United Daughters of the Confederacy while president, to the national organization and to the Georgia Division. Additionally while president he annually put a wreath at the Confederate Memorial in Arlington Cemetery around June 3rd which is the birthday of Jefferson Davis. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=D000113

This weekend I will put the information in.

Neo-Confederate runs for President in Republican Party Primaries

The website for the campaign is:

http://electwdkennedy.com/2007/march/announcement.php

Walter Donald Kennedy is one of the Kennedy brothers, authors of a series of Neo-Confederate books that are widely read. One of them "The South Was Right!" is one of the founding books of the modern Neo-Confederate movement. As authors they have this website:

http://www.kennedytwins.com/

The Kennedy brothers oppose the Voting Rights act from the beginning. When they were young, they "Rolled With Ross" in opposition to Civil Rights.

Walter D. Kennedy is also the author of the apologetic for slavery, "Myths of American Slavery."

How far can he go in the Republican party primaries. I don't know. However, I think it could create problems for the Republicans if he makes some head way. The religious right faction of the Republican party is fairly disgruntled. It seems the Republican front runners don't want to pander to the religious right. So there is discontent that Kennedy can tap into. He could get protest votes.

If he is able to draw some appreciable percentage, it might result in other primary candidates shifting along a Neo-Confederate vector to win, and then having the problem of living down their stances in other primaries and the general election.

Remember, George W. Bush won the South Carolina primary in 2000 through the Confederate flag issue and a website and campaign run by Richard T. Hines, former Associate Editor of Southern Partisan. The Neo-Confederates now run the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and have a real base of operations. They are waiting for the South Carolina primaries to sort out who will be the next Republican presidential candidate, like they did in 2000.

Then again, maybe not much at all will happen. You can only discuss possibilities and the future will come with its answers.

Calling all Cranks, Kirkpatrick Sale writes for "Chronicles" magazine

In the Nov. 2005 issue of Chronicles magazine, Kirkpatrick Sales, has his secession article, pages 20-21, where he has his fantasy ideas about a small republic. Seems to be immune to understanding economics.

Kirkpatrick Sales

When persons with Liberal or Left become reactionaries, they often want to talk about labels not being important or a third way. They really can't face that they have become reactionaries and that their anti-autoritarianism was never a particular ideology but was always a general non-specific crankiness. I give Sales the Eugene Genovese award for best emulating Genovese's decent into reactionary crackpotdom.

American Conservatives was founded and run by a lot of people from Southern Partisan magazine, the www.lewrockwell.com website and other Neo-Confederate venues. Patrick Buchanan is called a Confederate-American on the cover of Southern Partisan, 1st Quarter, 1996, which is a fairly accurate label, the particular issue had an exclusive on a speak Buchanan gave. He was a regular contributor to Southern Partisan.

This is Kirkpatrick Sales' essay in American Conservative.

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_08_28/article20.html

What you have making up the core of the Second Vermont Republic movement is reactionaries and miscellaneous others who are cranky over the future.

Peter Jones and "Chronicles"

The Rockford Institute promoted a conference in Edinburgh, May 2005, with the topic, "Walter Scott Versus the Scottish Enlightenment." Special guest speaker is Donald Livingston. The full page ad in the Feb. 2005 issue of Chronicles isn't as informative as the full page ad in the Main Street Memorandum of the Rockford Institute, July 2005, Vol. 22 No. 3.

One thing in the ad in the Main Street Memorandum is Peter Jones' participation. His lecture is that the Scottish Enlightenment wasn't all bad.

However, the lead paragraph for the tapes of the event inform the reader:

"In many conservative circles, Adam Smith's work is treated like Scripture, on moral as well as on economic questions. Knowing, however, that degenerates like Voltaire looked to the minds of the Scottish Enlightenment for inspiration should give us pause, and one great Scotsman, Sir Walter Scott, had more than his share of doubts about both the French and Scottish Enlightenment."

Since the Enlightenment lead to the end of "involuntary subordination" and human rights, I can surely see why the Rockford Institute crowd would not like it. Perhaps Vermont will be spared the Enlightenment in the Second Vermont Republic.

Bill Kaufman visits Carolyn Chute, another "Chronicles" connection

The article is titled, "Reactionary Radicals, Radical Reactionaries, The Militia of Love: A Visit With Novelist Carolyn Chute," by Bill Kaufman, Nov. 1999, pages 21-25.

In the article we learn that Chute has published a novel "Snow Man," a militia member who assassinates a Massachusetts U.S. Senator and targets another.

From the interview we learn that Chute goes into a rage over feminists. She is big on militias. Flys a militia flag. She wants to blow up public schools as a community activity.

"Her solution? "We need to blow up the schools and throw all the TV's into Boston Harbor. We do not want anybody in the schools when we blow them up. In fact, it would be rather nice is 80 percent of the population supported the effort. A great circle of people all holding hands will surround each brick fluorescent-lit school building. Songs of liberty will be sung. Flags will be waved. A cute 99-year-old retired schoolteacher will toss the first stick of dynamite.""

I think Carolyn Chute represents fully the mentality behind secessionists. A sort of raging crazed anti-authoritarianism which is cranky and upset about everything. The whole article is something.

Frank Bryan in "Chronicles" magazine

Frank Bryan promoted Vermont secession in the April 1991 issue of Chronicles, starting on page 45. It is the publication of the Rockford Institute http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/. They are currently promoting a book about M.E. Bradford who they regard as a hero. He was George Wallace campaign manager when Wallace ran for president.

This article of Bryan's comes after the Chronicles Jan. 1991 issue devoted to secession. Bryan's articles are a collection of gripes and a historical narrative of a Vermont republic.

Vermont Republic or Kingdom, a book review of Marco Bassani.

Marco Bassani reviewed "Democracy: The God That Failed" in "Southern Partisan" for Vol. 23 No. 4, July/August 2004. The "Southern Partisan" is the neo-Confederate magazine that Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, Phil Gramm, Dick Armey and others interviewed in.

Donald Livingston interviewed in the "Southern Partisan," in the double issue, Vol. 20 4th Qtr. 2000/ Vol. 21 1st Qtr 2001. However, this blog post is about Bassani.

This is a link to the book review of Hermann-Hoppe's book, "Democracy, The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order," Transaction Publishers, 2001, at Rutgers University. (Yes, the Rutgers University in New Jersey.)

http://www.mises.org/story/789

The book is an attack on democracy and argues that old style monarchy, not constitutional modern type monarchies, is superior to democracy.

Marco Bassani is quite taken by the book and one example is this quote on page 31-32:

"It is connection with this complex relationship between capitalism and the State that Hoppe makes his most outstanding contribution. His analysis is both theorectical and historical and underlines a point of extreme importance. The history of the State is not a narrative of progress from the beginning to the end it is actually a regressive history, just as monarcy was less inimical to property rights and the lives of the subjects than democracy. One could also argue that the political order of medieval pluralism was far superior to the monarchial absolutism that emerged at th end of the Middle Ages. Hoppe focuses on the transition from monarchy to democracy, and describes this as a process of decivilization; democratic republicanism has in fact been the triumph of a political culture more inclined than ever to collectivism, nationalism and mass slaughters. "

After the review goes on how bad democracy is, it then leads to how the solution or fix to get rid of what Hoppe sees as the evil of democracy is secession.

Bassani recommends that it be read along with Pat Buchanan's book, "Decline of the West," and concludes, "For conservatives and libertarians alike, it should not be too difficult to endorse both Buchanan's diagnosis and Hoppe's solutions."

I think with Bassani's writings, and Livingston's writings we see what the point of secession is.

Update: Bassani's article is in the special anti-Muslim issue of the Southern Partisan.

The League of the South's "The Grey Book" a statement of their beliefs.

The League of the South has published "The Grey Book," a statement of their beliefs. It is still being sold by the League of the South as a statement of their beliefs, you can order it from the League of the South at this URL:

http://leagueofthesouth.net/static/merchandise/merchandise.htm

These two essays concisely in one or two sentences express the breath of their reactionary sentiments. This is a book the LOS published to express their official positions and views and policies. It is not some stray essay in their periodicals or publications.

In it you see their hostility to women's rights, the Left, gays, democracy, etc.
From page 95, "The Treason of the Elite," pages 94-97, "The Grey Book," Traveller Press, Michael Hill editor, College Station, Texas, 2004.

"The treason of the Left involves such unconstitutional and immoral enormities of globalism -- the selling-out of American national sovereignty to international agencies and interests; radical egalitarianism' feminism; sodomite rights; abortion; Third World immigration; gun control; hate crime legislation (always meant to be used against whites); judicial tyranny; burdensome taxation; multiculturalism and diversity (code words for anti-white, anti-Christian bigotry); the universal rights of man; and other manifestations of a new brand of politically correct totalitarianism."

From page 102, "Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment," pages 98-102, "The Grey Book," Traveller Press, Michael Hill editor, College Station, Texas, 2004.

This is the concluding sentence of the essay.

"Revolutionary interpretation of the amendment have turned Lincoln's egalitarianism into rights-based social policies. The evil genie of universal 'human rights,' has been let out of its bottle and will never be put back in; 'rights' for women, racial and ethnic minorities, homosexuals, pedophiles, etc. are being manufactured in a never-ending, and never to-be-ended, series."

It isn't just about race. It is about a hostility to democratic freedom itself.

This is the George Wallace stuff that the League of the South sells at their store.

http://www.cafepress.com/losstore/562178

Livingston and "Involuntary Subordination" / Di Lorenzo

This weekend I will try to do more reviews of Livingston's writing.

These are some quotes from Donald Livingston's article, "Decentralists or D.C. Centralists: Overthrowing the Tyranny of Liberalism," pages 16-18, April 1999, Chronicles magazine, published by the Rockford Institute, http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/.

"A culture links generations together and is structured not by autonomy but by involuntary subordination and deference to authority." [Page 17]

"Since all forms of Enlightenment theorizing are hostile to the idea of involuntary subordination, they either ignore the priority of culture to autonomy or, in more radical forms, positively deny it." [Page 17]

"The ideal of individual autonomy as the end of the state, if consistently pursued, drives out culture because it drives out all forms of involuntary subordination and, consequently, undermines a valuable way of life." [Page 17]

Livingston is hostile to the 18th century Enlightenment and to the idea of the individual having rights. There are a series of articles which I hope to go through. For example, Jan 2007, pages 14-17, "The Declaration of Independence and Philosophic Superstitions," which is an attach on the idea that The Declaration of Independence is a document of "natural rights."

In both articles Livingston sees the solution to the problem of the lack of "involuntary subordination" and what he sees is a problem of the belief in "natural rights" through decentralization or the break up of large states into small ones. As Livingston states in his April 1999 article:

"The concentration has been ligitimated by an ideology of maximizing autonomy and destroying those substantial moral communities whose structures of involuntary subordination are offensive to liberalism."

Just remember that in an Second Vermont Republic there will be no appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court regarding some form of "involuntary subordination" the Livingston and company might dream up. Though Vermont being landlocked and small and mountainous, I think there will be good opportunities to make a run for the border.

DILORENZO

DiLorenzo is a contributor to www.lewrockwell.com and his contributions can be accessed at this page.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo-arch.html

A Donald Livingston Reader

For those who might be interested where Livingston is coming from might read these articles in Chronicles magazine of the Rockford Institute. I am sure some university in New England has a complete set. http://lists.webjunction.org/libweb/Academic_northeast.html

April 1999 page 16 (Talks about the need for involuntary subordination for maintaining culture.) "Decentralists or D.C. Centralists?: The Tyranny of Liberalism"

Jan. 2000 page 14

June 2001 page 24

Nov. 2001 page 17

July 2002 page 23

May 2003 page 14

July 2003 page 14

Aug. 2005 page 14

Jan. 2007 page 14

Sorry I am not providing more information. It is late, my day has been long and I will get back to this material tomorrow.

Vermont Democracy

The neo-Confederates believe in what they call "ordered liberty" which as far as I can tell is the liberty for them to order others around. This is mentioned in an article by Max Blumenthal where I make this comment.

You can read the article here: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050829/blumenthal

Michael Hill condemns Democracy in his lecture "Egalitarian Democracy the Universal Wolf," and you can listen to it here.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Dr.%5EMichael%5EHill

Vermont Unitarians

The Neo-Confederates portray Unitarians as the great villians of American history and destroyers of the South. I had a paper published in the Canadian Review of American Studies at the University of Toronto.

This is the link to the PDF version. http://gis.depaul.edu/ehague/Articles/PUBLISHED%20CRAS%20ARTICLE.pdf

This is the link to the HTML version. http://www.utpjournals.com/product/cras/323/sebesta.html

The prejudices of the Neo-Confederates are not limited to race. They see the Civil War as a theological war.

League of the South and Racism (Or Who in Vermont is kidding Whom?)

It would be very instructive to read the lead article on the League of the South webpage http://leagueofthesouth.net/index.php titled, "Let's Drop the 'R' Word," by Mike Tuggle which you can read at this link. Link to article here..

The article argues that the term "racism" and the concept are invalid. Tuggle claims that the concept of racism was and is a attempt by Marxists to attack the West. So if you asked a League of the South member if they are racist, they would deny it since they don't see it as a valid concept. Tuggle likens using the term "racism" to using Scientology terminology. Concluding:

"Don't laugh. As obvious as the above may seem, many conservative Christians have unknowingly adopted a term that undermines their own beliefs while promoting the ideology of their enemies. By accepting the term "racism" from the Marxist secular humanists, mainstream Christian conservatives are promoting the radical, anti-Christian ideology that invented it. "

One reason the League of the South has taken this approach to the concept of racism is that it has been all too well documented the racist agenda of the League of the South. So the term "racism" itself is attacked as "anti-Christian ideology." Of course this entire line of reasoning is to support a racist agenda and an attack on anti-racism at a most fundamental level.

Who is Naylor kidding, the League of the South is very serious racist group.

Thomas H. Naylor writings on Race

Thomas H. Naylor of the Second Vermont Republic movement http://www.vermontrepublic.org/ has this tirade response_to_smear_campaign about the involvement of Neo-Confederates in the Second Vermont Republic.

Well let's review what Naylor has to say about race in his book, "Downsizing the U.S.A.," Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997.

For one thing, Naylor sees ethnic and racial differences a reason for dissolution or states rights or devolution, he is a little vague here. On pages 210-211, he writes as follows:

"Although the American states may have once shared a number of common characteristics, this is much less true today than ever before. What do heavily industrialized states such as New York, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania have in common with predominately rural states such as Maine, Vermont, Mississippi, and West Virginia? The South is the fastest growing region in the nation demographically and economically.

Although African Americans represent only 12.6 percent of the American population, fourteen cities with populations over have black majorities. Detroit and Washington, D.C., are 75.7 percent and 65.8 percent black, respectively. Vermont, on the other hand, with fewer than two thousand blacks in the entire state, has the lowest percent African American population among the fifty states. The Mississippi Delta and the so-called Black Belt of the South have virtually nothing in common with the San Francisco Bay Area.

A dozen American cities with populations over one hundred thousand have Hispanic majorities, even though only 10.2 percent of the national population is Hispanic. Miami leads the way with a 62.5 percent Hispanic population. Over 25 percent of the population of Texas is Hispanic. Not surprisingly, many Texans now identify more closely with Mexico than was previously the case. California is expected to have a Hispanic majority during the first quarter of the twenty-first century. And Los Angeles County will have one by the end of this century.

Despite all the hype about the merits of multicultural pluralism, our cities are different and are states are different -- very different. This is not a statement of racial or ethnic superiority of one state or city in comparison to others, but rather an acknowledgment that the problems of Houston and Miami bear little resemblance to those of Burlington, Vermont or Laramie, Wyoming."

Well this begins to explain why Naylor has fled to Vermont from Richmond. With Vermont only being 0.6% African American and only 1.1% Hispanic he feels his isn't likely to end up in a majority minority city. This "only" percentage is not going to have him in a majority minority municipality. What is the point of Naylor statement "Although African Americans represent only 12.6 percent of American population, fourteen cities with populations over one hundred thousand have black majorities." It is a warning from Naylor, the overall percentage maybe low, but that doesn't mean you (a white "you") will not end up in a majority African American city.

Note should be taken that Vermont is flagged by Naylor as being different from other states because it is white.

Then there is Naylor's Reconquista illusions about Hispanics.

But the conclusion really says where Naylor is coming from where states and cities are "very different" because of race. That is race makes different states and cities "others" because of racial differences. To Naylor Race is a defining and dominating determining element necessary to make cities and states "very different." Which Naylor thinks the "hype ... of multicultural pluralism" doesn't overcome.

On pages 57-58 Naylor sees integration as being a failure. Naylor tries to couch his critique of integration and civil rights in terms of what it hasn't accomplished but in certain ways he betrays himself.

In the opening paragraph he states, "Since the 1960s the official policy of the U.S. government has been the forced racial integration of public schools, colleges and universities, public accommodations, restaurants, stores, and more recently the workplace." Segregation was forced in some states, with state laws mandating it. Also, who is being forced? Most Americans go to stores, restaurants, workplaces, etc. that are integrated, and don't feel forced, that they have to go to integrated places against their will, because they aren't segregationists. Being forced is the terminology of a segregationist.

Then Naylor states, "Although this commitment to racial integration once enjoyed broad-based public support, today an increasing number of whites, blacks, and Hispanics have either become ambivalent or hostile to forced integration." The fact is that the overwhelming majority of Americans of all races support integration. "an increasing number" doesn't really say anything, is it 48 people increasing to 79 people? There is a growing awareness that integration is perhaps only the first step to solving racial issues in America, is that the "ambivalent" that Naylor lumps with "hostile"?

However, towards the end Naylor calls for the end of integration as a Federal policy and law, stating:

"The simple truth is that after thirty years of top-down policies aimed at forcing blacks and whites to be in community with each other, racism and defacto segregation are still alive and well in urban America and elsewhere. Although there is increasing evidence that the quality of life has improved for many African Americans in the 1990s, on balance blacks are still poorer, less well educated, less healthy, and more likely to end up in jail than their white neighbors. Is it realistic to assume that it is possible for our government to force community on blacks and whites, given the history of the relationship between these two races in American -- slavery, emancipation, forced segregation, economic discrimination, and thirty years of paternalistic, top-down government programs? More creative solutions are needed? Has integration disempowered minorities, diluting their influence over their communities and implying that every solution to their problems always lies in the hands of the majority-backed government?"

Naylor suggests that integration has been a failure, though as a question. Naylor does ask for "creative solutions are needed" as alternatives to integration, though he doesn't say what these "creative solutions" would be, but given that he sees integration as a failure, these solutions involve an end to "forced" integration. Arguments against integration in the 1950s argued that it would be harmful to African Americans.

Why Naylor came to Vermont is explained on pages 48 to 52. Richmond is portrayed as a city overcome by crime, African American crime, and angry African Americans. Naylor says that Richmond "was in a death spiral." Naylor's white flight goes all the way to Vermont. Again this white flight is drapped in terms of solicitude for African Americans. It also explains why Naylor is concerns that even though a minority group might "only" be a certain percent there are majority minority cities.

Naylor feels that he isn't racist, because he isn't some raging segregationists, but he is of the other racist tradition of white paternalism.

Who are the advisers to the Second Vermont Republic

Who are the advisors to the Second Vermont Republic.

It isn't a Grand Duchy of Fenwick fantasy.

http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/ You will find many of the advisors for the SVR actively involved. Though currently they are "agrarian" and "Southern culture" and dissembling, they are Rockford Institute people, former LOS people. LOS is a nearly defunct organization and the Neo-Confederate academics and leaders have moved on to new groups. I would direct you to the conference and photo pages such as this one.

http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/06SS/06SSFaculty.htm There is Marco Bassini with a Confederate flag in the background. There is Peter Jones.

This is a link to Donald Livingston's essay at "Stalking the Wild Taboo." An examination of the home page will make it quite clear what the "Wild Taboo" is, racism. http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/dwliv01.html

The two Thomas H. Naylors, both fighting for states rights

I think people know of the Thomas H. Naylor who grew up in Jackson, Mississippi and is pushing Vermont Secession. Joined the staff of Duke University in 1964. http://www.econ.duke.edu/History/yohe_narr.pdf

Then there is the other Thomas H. Naylor, Executive Director Education and Finance Commission, who also had a states rights perspective and worked with the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission and worked in Jackson, Mississippi. This other person was in a film "Message from Mississippi" which defended segregation in Mississippi.

http://mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents/er/sovcom/

Is it father and son? It would be good to know Thomas H. Naylor of Vermont full biography. Born in 1936, gone to Columbia university, and then what? What was Thomas H. Naylor doing between graduating from Columbia University and starting at Duke Univ.

Hillary Clinton takes stand against Confederate flag on South Carolina Statehouse grounds

Hillary Clinton, campaigning for the presidency, has taken a stand against the Confederate flag being flown on the South Carolina Statehouse grounds.

Here is a link to the story.

Link to "Washington Post" article.

It seems that the Democratic candidates are all lining up against the Confederate flag. I have yet to find a Republican candidate for the presidency taking a stand. If there is some stand, pro or con, please let me know about it.

It is interesting that with the South Carolina primary, the issues of race and the Confederacy will be an issue in every presidential election, and it will divide identify the Democrats as anti-Confederate and the Republicans as pro-Confederate.

I have updated the presidential 2008 campaign also.

http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm

Vermont Secessionist revealed.

This blogger has been doing some hard work revealing who is behind the Vermont Secessionist movement.

http://www.vermontsecession.blogspot.com/

I sent the blogger some leads and he has been doing research on his own. It is good to see that people are realizing what the real agenda is behind the Vermont Republic movement.